No fee unless we recover compensation for your family Text size 833-4-ASBESTOS (833-427-2378) Free Case Review

Search

17 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · June 4, 2004 · in the opinion

    Wajer v. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (2004)

    …independent contract." Cutlip, 22 Md. App. at 683. The necessary control under § 343 is analogous to the control under § 414. Wells v. General Electric Co., 807 F. Supp. 1202, 1211 (D. Md. 1992). As discussed, supra…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · February 24, 2015 · in the opinion

    Sroka v. Union Carbide Corp. (2015)

    …General Electric's ("GE's") evidence established that the Navy "exert\[ed\] close control over communications provided by GE," GE would not have been permitted to affix warnings "unless directed by the Navy," and had GE…

  3. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · March 23, 2011 · in the opinion

    Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Saville (2011)

    …money must be used to pay claims, that general liability under the Joint Tort-feasors Act is established by the fact of the creation of the Trust and payment of settlement. We disagree. Under the Act…

  4. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · January 7, 1998 · in the opinion

    ACandS v. Abate (1998)

    The Western Electric plant was comprised of several buildings and was approximately three miles long and one-and-one-quarter miles deep. Morrow indicated that he worked primarily in the wire insulation building until he became…

  5. Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Maryland · March 2, 2020 · in the opinion

    In re RailWORKS Corporation (2020)

    …their respective positions. The parties also do not dispute certain key material facts, including when Mr. Reibie worked as an electrician and allegedly was exposed to asbestos, when Mr. Reibie was diagnosed with cancer, and that…

  6. Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Maryland · August 8, 2020 · in the opinion

    In re RailWORKS Corporation (2020)

    …their respective positions. The parties also do not dispute certain key material facts, including when Mr. Reibie worked as an electrician and allegedly was exposed to asbestos, when Mr. Reibie was diagnosed with cancer, and that…

  7. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · May 31, 2006 · in the opinion

    John Crane, Inc. v. Puller (2006)

    …and found that it contained asbestos. Dr. Longo's testing of the gaskets involved using a wire brush or an electric wire brush to clean a flange surface. The measuring equipment revealed that significant amounts of…

  8. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · November 20, 2017 · in the opinion

    Davenport v. Mcic, Inc. (2017)

    …be reasonable ones.") (emphasis in original). "\[M\]ere general allegations or conclusory assertions which do not show facts in detail and with precision will not suffice to overcome a motion for summary judgment." Educ. Testing Serv…

  9. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · February 10, 2005 · in the opinion

    Wilson v. John Crane, Inc. (2005)

    …that courts consider whether the party seeking the withdrawal or amendment has acted with due diligence. In more general terms, courts should seek to ascertain whether the aggrieved party was careless in not timely filing its…

  10. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · April 26, 2005 · in the opinion

    Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Cook (2005)

    685 (2000), addressing "whether the general rule (that no loss of consortium claim exists for an ante-nuptial tort) applies in cases where, at the time of the marriage, the injury to the spouse is latent…

  11. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 26, 2005 · in the opinion

    Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Cook (2005)

    685 (2000), addressing "whether the general rule (that no loss of consortium claim exists for an ante-nuptial tort) applies in cases where, at the time of the marriage, the injury to the spouse is latent…

  12. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · June 3, 1985 · in the opinion

    Smith v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1985)

    …the Smiths' theory, a separate three-year period beginning with award would govern limitations "as to such employee." We do not believe the General Assembly intended so great a fragmentation of third-party actions, particularly when …

  13. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 7, 1992 · in the opinion

    Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Armstrong (1992)

    …283 Md. 296, 327, 389 A.2d 887, 905 (1978). Causation is a necessary element of any strict liability action. Phipps v. General Motors Corp., 278 Md. 337, 344, 363 A.2d 955, 958 (1976). In…

  14. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · October 30, 2002 · in the opinion

    Owens-Illinois v. Gianotti (2002)

    …v. Martin, 14 Pa. D. & C.3d 325, 328 (1980)); and "the time of the accident" (Hendrix v. General Motors, 146 Cal.App.3d 296, 193 Cal.Rptr. 922, 927 (1983)). See Miles, 58 Md.App…

  15. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · October 18, 1995 · in the opinion

    ACandS, Inc. v. Godwin (1995)

    …we have now evidence of the consequences of exposure, but we do not have, in general, accurate measures of the levels of exposure occurring 20 or 30 years ago, which have given rise to these consequences…

  16. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · September 30, 1999 · in the opinion

    Porter Hayden Company v. Wyche (1999)

    …to the earliest diagnosis, from adenocarcinoma is 13.2 years." Although Porter Hayden seems to take issue in its reply brief with the use of general epidemiological testimony to draw inferences in specific cases, in Grimshaw…

  17. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · May 2, 2013 · in the opinion

    Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Carter (2013)

    …the non manufacturer supplier to warn plaintiffs is different under some circumstances than the duty of a manufacturer. In general, the supplier-installer is not held to a standard as strict as imposed on the manufacturer.